Let's Chat Sylvaneth

[Elric]

2 hours ago, Ben Johnson said:

Hi All,

We have spoken about this rule today and feel the intent is clear in that all of the Citadel Woods need to be within 1" of any of the other Citadel Woods making up the Sylvaneth Wyldwood. 

I hope this clears thing up for you all. 

I appreciate the post, but in order for this to be official then it needs to be in a FAQ. Referencing a forum post is a bit confusing, especially if your opponent doesn't know who Mr. Ben Johnson is. There's some issues like this coming up and "That's how they played it at Warlords" isn't a good enough answer. There's some people that don't know about the games played at Warlords or the TGA forums. A FAQ is a FAQ though.

 

p.s. I realize this post may make me sound like a rules lawyering ******, but my intent is to just have clear rulings that can be easily referenced by all. ?

[MidasKiss]

8 hours ago, Nico said:

I would say no it doesn't.

It would work on Tretch Craventail's spectacular , hilarious and could not be more fluffy if it tried troll on being charged rule - "Stay Here, I'll Get Help!" (used this against Mark Wildman at Blood & Glory - he still won, but it was a great moment), since that does use the word "retreat".

*Will this be what Les is remembered for in years to come? Surely his ace painting? Surely Facehammer?

Damn skinks, I will just have to kill them all then...

[Nico]

They are an insane Battleline unit - bravery 10 and 10 for 80 points? Plus the flee instead of activating!

[Mirage8112]

What does the photograph on the Warscroll show? It might just be a line of 3 Citadel Bases in an extended line, not in a Les Martin Cluster*. I said this to Les in the morning of Blood & Glory. 
I think lawyers could fight over the meaning of "within 1" of each other" for a whole day - it could bear either of the meanings suggested. There are good arguments both ways (e.g. by comparison to the other wording etc.).
To me though, the photo tips the balance against the Les Martin Cluster.
If someone at GW wants to FAQ it then please do so, but it seems debatable either way at the moment. It obviously would be an irritating nerf to Sylvaneth (in a situation where TOs are already nerfing them and not the Kunning Rukk and not repricing Huskards on Thundertusks).

I was going to post in the generals rule forum, but thought I might start here. Does our household "no retreat" rule prevent things like skinks, and other skaven style disengagements during combat phase or otherwise under their own named special rules?

I originally thought it would, but the skinks rule doesn't use any words like retreat in it, and I had it argued that it wasn't a retreat move. As they shoot and charge before the combat phase there hasn't been any other areas where this has mattered, and the 4 page rules on fleeing combat are awfully vague.

I would say no it doesn't.
It would work on Tretch Craventail's spectacular , hilarious and could not be more fluffy if it tried troll on being charged rule - "Stay Here, I'll Get Help!" (used this against Mark Wildman at Blood & Glory - he still won, but it was a great moment), since that does use the word "retreat".


It does use the word retreat, but just as importantly it uses that whole "as if it were the movement phase" line. Unfortunately the skink movement happens in the combat phase. So unless they FAQ that models in combat count as having retreated if they leave combat in any phase, RAW they can still bail.

FYI I do have that as a question into the FAQ boys. Word on the street is the next FAQ will be out in about 3 months if so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nico]

Quote

It does use the word retreat, but just as importantly it uses that whole "as if it were the movement phase" line.

Not sure I follow. Household says no "retreat", Tretch says "retreat" - so he cannot do it.

Skinks say "withdraw" and move to more than 3" in the combat phase - purposively it is a retreat (and so blocked by Household) - literally maybe not. Probably not going to come up as an issue in a game until Seraphon get an allegiance pack (I've not seen any Seraphon armies in the scales for a good while).

[Mirage8112]

 

1 hour ago, Nico said:

Not sure I follow. Household says no "retreat", Tretch says "retreat" - so he cannot do it.

Skinks say "withdraw" and move to more than 3" in the combat phase - purposively it is a retreat (and so blocked by Household) - literally maybe not. Probably not going to come up as an issue in a game until Seraphon get an allegiance pack (I've not seen any Seraphon armies in the scales for a good while).

Treatchs rule says explicitly that it's a retreat, but I assume they worded it that way because if they gave him a flat out extra move, he'd be able to use it every combat phase. Its clear the intent was they only want him to use it as a retreat. Regardless, he wouldn't be able to use it around a household unit since it states retreat. Even if it didn't say retreat he still wouldnt be able to use it as it happens "as if it were the movement phase".

As to the skinks, what I meant was the action happens in the combat phase not the movement phase. So the fact that it says "withdraw" is rather inconsequential.

If the movement happened in the movement phase and it said "withdraw", it would be a retreat because they started the movement phase within 3 inches of an enemy model. This would be "retreating" since they would be ending their movement not within 3 inches. 

Im fairly sure RAW the question of "retreating" is dependent on the phase the action happens in, and not the wording of how they move. "Move", "withdraw", "setup" doesn't matter. Models only count as retreating if it's the movement phase or "as if it were the movement phase". (Which is how forest folk and Vexilator can move models in the hero phase without being subject to retreating: it happens in the wrong phase for retreating.) Skinks withdraw happens in the combat phase (hence its not a retreat), and treatch's both explicitly says retreat AND happens "as if it were the movement phase" (thus he can't use it).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nico]

Quote

If the movement happened in the movement phase and it said "withdraw", it would be a retreat because they started the movement phase within 3 inches of an enemy model. This would be "retreating" since they would be ending their movement not within 3 inches. 

I see. Good point.

Also if it said "withdraw in a deemed movement phase in the combat phase".

Also if it said "retreat" instead of "withdraw".

Quote

Im fairly sure RAW the question of "retreating" is dependent on the phase the action happens in, and not the wording of how they move. "Move", "withdraw", "setup" doesn't matter. Models only count as retreating if it's the movement phase or "as if it were the movement phase". (Which is how forest folk and Vexilator can move models in the hero phase without being subject to retreating: it happens in the wrong phase for retreating.) 

It's because those rules are set up rules and not moves - there's a bright line in the FAQs between set ups and moves, which simplifies the game and is generally brilliant. I don't want to reiterate the whole debate above about Navigate Realmroots (also a set up rule). Retreats are a subset of moves (because they are subject to the 3" rule amongst other reasons, which is the defining characteristic of moves). Hence set ups (not being moves) don't count as retreats.

Again, this could be house ruled by TOs or it could be further spelled out in an FAQ (although the existing FAQ seems to be emphatic in the distinction between set up and move e.g. that it gives specific examples like the Warrior Brotherhood...).

[Mirage8112]

18 minutes ago, Nico said:

I see. Good point.

Also if it said "withdraw in a deemed movement phase in the combat phase".

Also if it said "retreat" instead of "withdraw".

Exactly. 
 

19 minutes ago, Nico said:

It's because those rules are set up rules and not moves - there's a bright line in the FAQs between set ups and moves, which simplifies the game and is generally brilliant.

Well, no. it's because they happen in the hero phase and do not happen "as if it were the movement phase." Unless GW sees it differently of course. 
 

24 minutes ago, Nico said:

I don't want to reiterate the whole debate above about Navigate Realmroots (also a set up rule). Retreats are a subset of moves (because they are subject to the 3" rule amongst other reasons, which is the defining characteristic of moves). Hence set ups (not being moves) don't count as retreats.

I don't intend to ignite the realmroot debate specifically, but I will say that a retreat is not specifically a subset of moves.  A retreat is anything that happens in the movement phase that takes a model who started within 3" of an enemy further than 3" from an enemy; full stop. They are a result of where the model starts the movement phase in relation to where it ends the movement phase. Models who use a regular movement are subject to the 3" from enemy models rule, but as you mentioned before, if they change their position via a "set-up", they aren't subject to the 3" rule. But if they start the phase within 3" of a model then yes, a set-up move counts as retreating. 

If you want to argue that "only regular movements count as retreating" I'll have to see an FAQ or rule text that explicitly says "only movements count as retreating". Otherwise you're just wishlisting and trying to rules lawyer around it. Retreating is a result of the phase, not how the model changes its position during that phase. 

30 minutes ago, Nico said:

Again, this could be house ruled by TOs or it could be further spelled out in an FAQ

I hope so. As I said above it's already been forwarded to the rule dept. for the next FAQ.
 

[Nico]

As I said earlier, this ignores the property of special rules that they are special - they add additional options outside of the core rules. Your premise that the description of the retreat rule is a forever closed list of only (a) (stand still) or (b) (retreat) is not necessarily right. It may be that if another self-contained rule says "you can do (c)", then (c) doesn't have to fit into (a) or (b).

If all of the 4 pages of rules were interpreted as a closed list of things that you can do, then there could be no special rules on Warscrolls at all, since special rules are by definition exceptions or additions to the core rules. A good example would be the rules on the shooting phase, which say (paraphrasing) in the shooting phase you can attack with ranged weapons - full stop. If this is a closed list of things you can do, then the Heraldor could never toot his horn and the Magmadroth could never use its breath attack (neither of these are ranged weapons) etc.. These two examples are self-contained rules that add a completely new option to the shooting phase which doesn't fit in with the core rules (in particular you can run and also use both of these abilities). They don't have to fit into the option (a) in the core rules i.e. shoot with ranged weapons and they cannot do so.  #If this list of things you can do in the shooting phase is open, then why is the list of things you can do under the retreat rule somehow closed.

I would say that Navigate Realmroots, Vexillor and so on are self-contained rules which add a brand new option which doesn't have to fit within the (a) or (b) of the retreat rule, just as Toot Toot doesn't and cannot fit within the (a) of the shooting phase. 

I think this debate comes from the starting point - I would instinctively start with the Warscroll and refer to the core rules and the FAQ as necessary to resolve any uncertainties (this looks to me like good game design, you're not having to cross-refer to multiple pages of a 100 page rule book all the time, the rule is pretty much all there on the Warscroll). You seem to start from the core rules and try to force the Warscroll to fit within the core rules (even when this isn't necessary as the special rule is creating a new and self-contained option outside the Warscroll).

It's not clear which approach is right and probably one approach is right some of the time and the other the rest of the time. 

Maybe there's an unstated balance argument underlying your view as well (e.g. Kurnoth Hunters might be overpowered if they can retreat and shoot). If so, then please express it. I'd much rather keep the bright dividing line between moves and set ups (the brighter the better as it makes things clearer and players, especially new players will know that they should be focussing on that distinction if they want to get better at this fantastic game of dynamic movement, deployment trickery and keyword combos); and have an FAQ answer that says "Navigate Realmroots counts as a retreat if the unit starts within 3" of an enemy unit"; instead of muddying the distinction between moves and set ups.

[Aezeal]

I agree with Nico that special rules could  change anything. Not sure what that means for the rest of the discussion though.

I think Nico arguments for setup vs move vs retreat should be how it needs to work in the end since some abilities/ rules seem to use the words as the basis for activation.... I m just not sure GW went all the way with that yet so not sure it currently works.

[Nico]

On a bright note, I'm about half way through painting Drycha. It's going to be part of the lava themed Sylvaneth army in the Realm of Fire. Very Excited. Joy to paint her. My second Drycha model might be converted into another Treelord Ancient.

[Forestreveries]

Just played a couple of games with my new army builds.


Both games 2k GH
First one was the "3 Combat Blocks" build with 2x 6 Scythe Hunters and 30 Dryads with Gnarlroot and Sisters.

I played against pure Beastclaw with no Thundertusks. 2 Stonehorns, one with a Huskard,
2x4 Fangs and 3x2 Sabres with a Hunter and a couple of Formations

Not the optimal build by any means.

We rolled up Border War (GHOUL PATROL!)

I dropped in one go (as last time I played against BCR I didn't have a formation and was out deployed which was massively detrimental) also going first is a great head start in this scenario.

Everything on the board with the sisters and Branchwych near a bit of arcane and the 3CB's in a "U" shape around the spot I wanted to summon a wood on turn one. The other wood was on the objective in my opponents dz.

My opponent had deployed most of his stuff off centre with only the 2 Stonehorns near the objective, keeping the Hunter and sabres in reserve.

I went hyper aggressive and sent all three blocks straight over the table to the other wood. (After buffing the hell out of the Dryads of course)

This was perhaps a very significant bit of luck but I actually made charges with both units of 6 Kurnoth needing 9's. One unit (which had taken Damned Terrain this turn) into 4 Mournfang and the other into the non character Stonehorn.

I attack the SH first and do 11 wounds which is reduced to 6. He then goes with the mournfang and kills a single Hunter and the 5 remaining +1 to hit Hunters delete the Mournfang.

I also move up Tree Revenants onto the flank objectives and thanks to outnumbering the 2 SH's claim all 4 points in turn one giving me a solid lead!

In his turn his Huskard charges into my unit engaging the other SH, his mournfang fail to charge my Revenants on one flank but all 3 units of Sabretusks make it into the unit on the other side.
Only 3 of the 6 cats are within 6 of the objective though.

The 2 Stonehorns kill all but 1 Hunter between them, I only chip a few more wounds off the beast rider one.

My Revenants split their attacks. The champion with Glaive attacks the unit of 2 that is contrasting but due to reach issue the rest of his unit can't get the cat from the second unit that is contesting. The 4 regular Revenants manage to put down a sabretusk, but then thanks to my reroll the champion kills both of the 2 contesting by himself!

This means 3 cats have to kill all the Revenants for his single one in range to claim the point, which they fail to do (1 left after battleshock)

Between this and the mournfang failing their charge this means my opponent only cores the point in his DZ in his first turn giving me a solid 8 point lead.

He wins initiative for turn 2 and it feels like this should have been a great chance for him to rectify that.

Only that single Kurnoth Hunter who survived is engaging both Stonehorns preventing them charging anything else. They are effectively pinned for a turn! This is a huge deal as it means I'm almost guaranteed to pick off the weakened one on my terms before having to commit to the full health Huskard.

My buffs are still up on the Dryads but my opponent elects to charge them with mournfang regardless.

He pours all of his shooting (Blood Vultures and crossbows from Huskard and Hunter) into the last Kurnoth willing him to die so they can charge the nearby Dryads or the other Kurnoth Unit, but he holds on with a single wound. Mission Accomplished. Great work buddy!

The Mournfang effectively run into a brick wall. They kill 4 Dryads with Mortal Wounds (which come from their formation bonus) but the rest pass all their saves and end up inflicting 10 or so Mortal Wounds back onto he Mournfang themselves with Shield of Thorns!

With the Dryads attacks on top they actually killed half the unit which charged them.

In my turn I charge my second unit of Hunters into the damaged Stonehorn, staying out of 3" of the Huskard. I shoot one of the 2 remaining Mournfang with my Ancient's Doomfire Tendrils and Sisters' Blackbriar Javelins and then take off the last one with the Dryads in combat.

My single Tree Revenant falls to a sabretusk this turn meaning nobody scores that objective but I get the other three consolidating my already solid lead. Next turn I teleport my other Revenants over to avenge their brothers and kill the last cat, whilst my (admittedly minimal) shooting and magic go into the Hunter leaving him on 1. The Hunters and Dryads both charge the Huskard, despite me failing Mystic Shield this turn. I figure he won't attack the Dryads anyway and I'll claim the objective anyway due to numbers.

His Huskard actually splits his attacks, directing the Horns at the Dryads and killing 16 or something?!
Oh dear! Think he killed a single Hunter with the other attacks but then he fails 9/9 Saves from the Hunter's Scythes and I manage somehow to roll 23 on the 9 d3 damage. That kills a Stonehorn in one pop even with the half wounds! [emoji44]

It's prettymuch game over there, my Revenants kill the last cat leaving him with a single wound Hunter to contest all of my army bar 7 Kurnoth and 5 Tree Revenants.

Major Victory!


Obviously I had quite a lot of good fortune in this one but was good to finally give the BCR a good kicking!




Sent from the Hidden Enclaves via the Realmroots

[Nico]

Quote

I dropped in one go (as last time I played against BCR I didn't have a formation and was out deployed which was massively detrimental) also going first is a great head start in this scenario.

One point is that if you can count exactly how many drops he has, then you can drop most of the battalion as your first drop and then drop the remaining units as single drops and still guarantee choice of first turn (as per the Battalion rules in each Battletome). I would usually leave some leeway (so drop 2 fewer drops than I count the opponent has). This could be academic if most of your units are going in the Hidden Enclaves anyway.

Quote

Obviously I had quite a lot of good fortune in this one but was good to finally give the BCR a good kicking! 
 

Definitely satisfying to beat them. 

That said as soon as you said no Thundertusks I'm immediately thinking narrative player or fluff player. The army is all about the Thundertusk. 

It was really interesting listening to Russ Veal on Facehammer re BCR. Firstly it's novel to hear him discussing games that he lost with games in the plural. Secondly his list looked amazing on paper @grunnlock and I discussed the beatstick potential of his Huskard on Stonelord and the combo.

However in practice there's no reason to stick to pure BCR and dozens of reasons for mixing it up. The Stonelord with Battlebrew is very good at what it does but is ultimately a better Necrosphinx that cannot fly. The Huskard on Thundertusk is unique in terms of threat range, healing and reliable 6 mortal wounds output (which is perfect for 2 shotting a Durthu or 3 shotting Alarielle.

[Mirage8112]

23 hours ago, Nico said:

As I said earlier, this ignores the property of special rules that they are special - they add additional options outside of the core rules. Your premise that the description of the retreat rule is a forever closed list of only (a) (stand still) or (b) (retreat) is not necessarily right. It may be that if another self-contained rule says "you can do (c)", then (c) doesn't have to fit into (a) or (b)....

It doesn't ignore the fact that special rules are special, but just because a rule is special it doesn't allow you to just disregard an inconvenient part of the core rules. Special rules DO trump core rules but only when there is a conflict. If the core rules say, "you cannot shoot", but a special rule says "yes you can" then obviously the special rule takes precedence. That's been a staple of war-games as long as there has been war-games. But when the special rule and the core rules do not conflict, then they BOTH apply. There is nothing about the core rules that prevents you from navigating the realmroots, but it applies a penalty if you do. There's no "conflict" that makes you have to choose one or the other. You have to pick both because both apply. If the chartsaid "on a role of 6 it can act normally" or mentioned anything about being able to shoot on a roll greater than 1, I'd give it to you that the word "normally" or phrase "can shoot" overrides the core rules, but it only mentions moving again during the movement phase. 
 

23 hours ago, Nico said:

I think this debate comes from the starting point - I would instinctively start with the Warscroll and refer to the core rules and the FAQ as necessary to resolve any uncertainties (this looks to me like good game design, you're not having to cross-refer to multiple pages of a 100 page rule book all the time, the rule is pretty much all there on the Warscroll). You seem to start from the core rules and try to force the Warscroll to fit within the core rules (even when this isn't necessary as the special rule is creating a new and self-contained option outside the Warscroll).

The core rules define the game, special rules add exceptions to those rules if there is a conflict. Of course the core rules provide a framework which the warscrolls figure into. Just because the war scroll for a demon prince says "Chaos wizards can summon demon prince on a roll of 8". You can't just roll an 8 whenever you want and argue "the warscoll doesn't say it has to be in the hero phase." That's silly. And basically what you're saying is that "the war scroll doesn't say it's a retreat." It doesn't have to, it's a retreat based on WHEN the rule can be used (start of the movement phase).  

If the core rules said, " a unit within 3" of enemy unit at the start of the movement phase cannot move", I would say you were right; because a set-up is not a move, it's a setup. 

But that's not what it says. It says. "units within 3" of an enemy unit may either remain stationary (i.e. stay within 3") or retreat (not stay within 3")." You're entire argument hinges on the fact that the "retreat rules" do not apply to "set-ups". Your trying to argue around the fact that there is nothing in the core rules or special rules that imply that. I've said it before and say it again: Units are subject to retreat based on where they were when the movement phase started. Seriously. Read the rule as written. Nowhere does it say a retreat is only a standard move. It does say if you wish to use a standard move to retreat you must end more than 3" away from an enemy. It does not say the only way to retreat is a standard move. 
 

On 12/16/2016 at 6:18 PM, Nico said:

Maybe there's an unstated balance argument underlying your view as well (e.g. Kurnoth Hunters might be overpowered if they can retreat and shoot). If so, then please express it. I'd much rather keep the bright dividing line between moves and set ups (the brighter the better as it makes things clearer and players, especially new players will know that they should be focussing on that distinction if they want to get better at this fantastic game of dynamic movement, deployment trickery and keyword combos); and have an FAQ answer that says "Navigate Realmroots counts as a retreat if the unit starts within 3" of an enemy unit"; instead of muddying the distinction between moves and set ups.

I don't specifically have a balance argument behind my reasoning, because it's not balance issue. I don't interpret rules based on whats "fair", I interpret rules based on how their written. It's clear that set-ups are different then moves; what I'm arguing doesn't change that. But you're trying to argue a point that rules don't say, i.e. that retreats only apply to moves and you keep repeating (over and over) that "set-ups and moves are different". I'm not saying they are the same, what I'm saying is that: Units are subject to the retreat rules based on where they were when the movement phase started. Seriously. Read the rule as written.

If you want to argue that the retreat rules ONLY apply to standard moves (because that's the only way you would be right), show me anywhere in the core rules, battletomes, warscrolls or FAQ where it says or even implies that and I'll let it drop. Otherwise you're just rules lawyering.

Show me the text or no dice. Full stop. 

[Mirage8112]

Had a really interesting game tonight against man-eaters with a couple of interesting takeaways.

2k points, no scenarios, no battleline (on his side), and no rule of 1's in play.

5 rounds. All double turns. 

1. Took a Gnarlroot list with no order wizard (GASP)
2. With the extra points freed up, took an outcasts battalion.
3. His allegiance ability was the one that burns down the wyldwoods. (FK)

General takeaways:

1. F@%K ironguts. No seriously. F@%K ironguts for days. The first back to back turn saw him erase 20 dryads like they were nothing. it didn't help that I wasn't able to get the Treelord Ancient in range for the stomp because...

2. Playing trees or treeholes block movement is rough. It dramatically limits placement for units coming in from the hidden enclaves and makes pile-ins an exercise in advanced trigonometry. In some ways it helps as much as it hurts though, really creating "choke points" that you can use to prevent enemy models from getting attacks (especially big models like ironguts)   

3. The outcast battalion is seriously overlooked for what it can do. It wouldn't be as effective vs. undead or demons, but vs low bravery models like Ogres it's absolutely brutal. It takes some placement to pull off, but in the two rounds (of five) it went off, it put out combined total of 14 mortal wounds. (!!)


Nothing left standing. This is going to be controversial, but track with me. 

The rule:

"Nothing left standing: In your hero phase, pick a terrain feature that is within 6" of your general and at least 5 other friendly DESTRUCTION models. That terrain feature no longer provides cover, and any scenery rules it has can no longer be used."

So. Pretty straight forward. But again, RAW look what it says the "terrain feature no longer provides cover, and any scenery rules it has can no longer be used."  So anything on its warscroll, cannot be used. What rules are on its warscroll? "Wyldwood" (roll of 1 a charging or running model dies) and "Roused by Magic" (on a  5+ it goes crazy).

But note it says the "scenery rules" can no longer be used. It's still a wyldwood. It still stays on the table. The means an warscrolls which gain extra abilities or allegiance abilities that revolve around wyldwoods would still apply. 

That means Durthu's extra attacks, Dryads -1 to hit, navigating the realmroots, TLA's signature spell and revenants teleport would still function as before, because those abilities are on the relevant units warscroll or an army allegiance ability and not scenery rules. 

Yes it would lose cover, deadly terrain and magic craziness. But our army can still use the wood as it always has, because technically it's still a wyldwood. 

I don't know if I'm the only one who who just realized this, but it makes nothing left standing a lot less scary. 
 

[Forestreveries]

@nico I'm nott sure the BCR army has to be all about the Thundertusks. When I played@Donal at Age of Santa I was well aware of the 6Mortal wounds and so directed all my shooting at that first turn, reducing its damage output.

I completely overlooked the potential of his Huskard with a potential +2 or +3 to wound getting so many mortal wounds that he killed Alarielle and 2 Durthu's before his own second turn.

That was partly down to stupidly bad play and over confidence on my part of course, but that thing was ridiculous!

I was playing Matt Clarke, a tournament regular who, although he doesn't take the optimal lists, gets consistent results. He has won multiple best in alliance trophies this year I believe. And has played 3 of the 4 Grand Alliances. He's not a fluff gamer, just a decent all round player.

Having said that, after the game matt did say he was thinking of dropping some of the mournfang or the sabre tusks for a Thundertusks as he has very little ranged damage output.


Sent from the Hidden Enclaves via the Realmroots

[Nico]

Quote

It doesn't ignore the fact that special rules are special, but just because a rule is special it doesn't allow you to just disregard an inconvenient part of the core rules. Special rules DO trump core rules but only when there is a conflict. If the core rules say, "you cannot shoot", but a special rule says "yes you can" then obviously the special rule takes precedence. That's been a staple of war-games as long as there has been war-games. But when the special rule and the core rules do not conflict, then they BOTH apply. There is nothing about the core rules that prevents you from navigating the realmroots, but it applies a penalty if you do. There's no "conflict" that makes you have to choose one or the other. You have to pick both because both apply.

Interesting. You're right that I cannot get to the point where I would feel confident that a TO would 90% or more likely rule my way as you do have arguments that point the other way, I do feel that I'm over 60%, but we'll see.

I see where you're going, but you're not addressing the closed list point. You're assuming that there is a conflict when there isn't necessarily.

Implicit within your view that both rules apply (I don't think that Navigate Realmroots actually engages with the Retreat rules at all) is that the core rules section on Retreating is a closed list and no other rule can add another option to what you can do in the movement phase in those circumstances outside of those two options (a) and (b). This assumption looks doubtful as a future Warscroll could always say "this doesn't count as a retreat" or "ignoring the rules on retreating" (or whatever). While yours is one way of interpreting this conundrum, it's certainly not the only way to interpret it.

If you read the Navigate Realmroots from start to finish (and it's quite lengthy), then it looks to me like a self-contained code. Nothing would make you think to look at the Retreat Rules. The "instead of moving normally" is the joker in the pack here. One could reasonably take that to mean "ignore all the rules in the movement phase section of the core rules (which would include the Retreat rule") because you're not doing it "normally"; and follow this self-contained code right here". I don't need to go quite that far, but it's one way of interpreting that. The fact that Navigate Realmroots is a set up rule and the FAQs create a bright line distinction between set ups and moves reinforces that kind of argument. 

On the other hand, some people (not you) interpret that kind of wording ("instead of moving normally" ) to mean that Navigate Realmroots is both a "setup" and a "move" and subject to both FAQ answers for both of these (which to be is a road to contradictions and paradoxes and sadly more arguments). Hence I call it a joker in the pack, it could make me right or it could make you right (and independently also mess things up elsewhere).

Quote

You're entire argument hinges on the fact that the "retreat rules" do not apply to "set-ups". Your trying to argue around the fact that there is nothing in the core rules or special rules that imply that. 

See page 4, right column of the Core Rules "2. Movement Phase Move units across the battlefield." Brief, but on point. I can run an argument that a retreat (as part of the Core Rules within the Movement Phase section) is a subset of the possible moves based on that alone.

Just to be clear, this doesn't also imply that everything that happens in the movement phase in all Warscrolls ever (as opposed to within the Core Rules) is a "move", there's at least one Warscroll where you can shoot in the movement phase (Skeleton Horse Archers) and that's definitely not a "move".

While I cannot prove conclusively that (1) retreats are a subset of moves; (2) set ups and moves are fundamentally distinct; (3) a rule can never be both a move and a set up; and hence (4) set up rules cannot be retreats; and (5) Navigate Realmroots is a set up rule - I have decent arguments on all of these points that this is the case, pending an FAQ answer. Quite independently of this, I have the Navigate Realmroots is a self-contained code which doesn't engage with the retreat rule (it adds another independent option (c) onto the (a) and (b) of what you can normally do in the movement phase when within 3" of the enemy.  

Quote

If the chartsaid "on a role of 6 it can act normally" or mentioned anything about being able to shoot on a roll greater than 1, I'd give it to you that the word "normally" or phrase "can shoot" overrides the core rules, but it only mentions moving again during the movement phase. 

You're right about this, but the omission of such wording isn't a particularly strong argument the other way. It could be taken as implicit that you can shoot and charge after doing the Navigate Realmroots rule as is the case for the dozens of other rules that involve setting up a unit 9 inches away from enemy units where you can shoot, but rarely make the charge (summoning Flamers that then charged for example). 

Quote

The core rules define the game, special rules add exceptions to those rules if there is a conflict. Of course the core rules provide a framework which the warscrolls figure into. Just because the war scroll for a demon prince says "Chaos wizards can summon demon prince on a roll of 8". You can't just roll an 8 whenever you want and argue "the warscoll doesn't say it has to be in the hero phase." That's silly. And basically what you're saying is that "the war scroll doesn't say it's a retreat." It doesn't have to, it's a retreat based on WHEN the rule can be used (start of the movement phase). 

Unlike your other better arguments, these are straw men arguments.

Quote

The core rules define the game, special rules add exceptions to those rules if there is a conflict.

The bit in bold is overly narrow. Special rules add exceptions and additional options all the time, many of which are entirely outside the scope of the Core Rules (and that's not a bad thing). Kairos's Oracle of Eternity rule allows you to change a dice roll yet there's nothing in the Core Rules about doing this - it's not a reroll), so it's a self-contained code that stands by itself.

Anyway - hopefully we'll get an FAW answer on it. I think we'll just have to make our respective points to a TO or dice it off.

It is a pretty important point for Kurnoth Hunters and the like, so worth getting an answer in advance of a specific tournament.  

 

[Nico]

 

Quote

1. Took a Gnarlroot list with no order wizard (GASP)

It's still very efficient even if you don't take the Wizard.

Quote

3. His allegiance ability was the one that burns down the wyldwoods. (FK)

Interesting. As I recall it leaves the Sylvaneth Wyldwood in place (so you cannot put another one there to replace it and it's still a zoo pen for Stonelords) but deletes cover and deletes the special rules. It would be very interesting as an artefact. It's also a hard counter to the Balewind Vortex!
 

Quote

1. F@%K ironguts. No seriously. F@%K ironguts for days. The first back to back turn saw him erase 20 dryads like they were nothing. it didn't help that I wasn't able to get the Treelord Ancient in range for the stomp because...

You should try playing Bullgors with double handed axes, they make Ironguts look utterly pitiful (although the 4+ save on Ironguts is a big deal). Ironguts and Battleshock tests are fun! Conversely Bullgors are Crown of Conquested.

You could throw the Ancient/Durthu general into them with the 35/36 (Oaken Armour plus Gnarled Warrior) save against their -1 rend and stop them completely.
 

Quote

2. Playing trees or treeholes block movement is rough. It dramatically limits placement for units coming in from the hidden enclaves and makes pile-ins an exercise in advanced trigonometry. In some ways it helps as much as it hurts though, really creating "choke points" that you can use to prevent enemy models from getting attacks (especially big models like ironguts)   

Yup! I found the exact same in a game where we had a Citadel Wood as a regular piece of scenery on Wednesday (it was very hard to fit 10 Protectors into it as cover. I'm going to build mine without the trees, but with someting else to block the trunks. The branches are infuriating.
 

Quote

3. The outcast battalion is seriously overlooked for what it can do. It wouldn't be as effective vs. undead or demons, but vs low bravery models like Ogres it's absolutely brutal. It takes some placement to pull off, but in the two rounds (of five) it went off, it put out combined total of 14 mortal wounds. (!!)

It's one of the best sideboard options out there for low bravery armies. I'm building the 4 Spite Revenant units over Christmas.

Quote

It wouldn't be as effective vs. undead or demons

Or Stormcast or Seraphon, or Aelves or Duardin (high bravery and rerolling battleshock).

It is - amusingly - very good in a stick-off - Sylvaneth vs Sylvaneth as Dryads have dismal bravery.
 

Quote

Nothing left standing. This is going to be controversial, but track with me. 

The rule:

"Nothing left standing: In your hero phase, pick a terrain feature that is within 6" of your general and at least 5 other friendly DESTRUCTION models. That terrain feature no longer provides cover, and any scenery rules it has can no longer be used."

So. Pretty straight forward. But again, RAW look what it says the "terrain feature no longer provides cover, and any scenery rules it has can no longer be used."  So anything on its warscroll, cannot be used. What rules are on its warscroll? "Wyldwood" (roll of 1 a charging or running model dies) and "Roused by Magic" (on a  5+ it goes crazy).

But note it says the "scenery rules" can no longer be used. It's still a wyldwood. It still stays on the table. The means an warscrolls which gain extra abilities or allegiance abilities that revolve around wyldwoods would still apply. 

That means Durthu's extra attacks, Dryads -1 to hit, navigating the realmroots, TLA's signature spell and revenants teleport would still function as before, because those abilities are on the relevant units warscroll or an army allegiance ability and not scenery rules. 

Yes it would lose cover, deadly terrain and magic craziness. But our army can still use the wood as it always has, because technically it's still a wyldwood. 

I don't know if I'm the only one who who just realized this, but it makes nothing left standing a lot less scary. 

You are of course probably correct on a literal interpretation. You could perhaps say that Sylvaneth Wyldwood is a keyword and hence a "scenery rule" in a broad sense.

Purposively, I'm pretty skeptical. I'm going to go with the purposive approach as normal, i.e. it just becomes a vanilla piece of scenery. 

At a competitive event, I wouldn't dare to challenge a Destruction player who thought that this would delete all the movement tricks, and the +1 to save - you're just begging the TO to hate you and hate all Sylvaneth players. At the very least (if you are right), then you should flag this to the opponent before he wastes his Command Trait.

 

 

[Nico]

Quote

@nico I'm nott sure the BCR army has to be all about the Thundertusks. When I played@Donal at Age of Santa I was well aware of the 6Mortal wounds and so directed all my shooting at that first turn, reducing its damage output. 

I completely overlooked the potential of his Huskard with a potential +2 or +3 to wound getting so many mortal wounds that he killed Alarielle and 2 Durthu's before his own second turn. 

That was partly down to stupidly bad play and over confidence on my part of course, but that thing was ridiculous!

I was playing Matt Clarke, a tournament regular who, although he doesn't take the optimal lists, gets consistent results. He has won multiple best in alliance trophies this year I believe. And has played 3 of the 4 Grand Alliances. He's not a fluff gamer, just a decent all round player. 

Having said that, after the game matt did say he was thinking of dropping some of the mournfang or the sabre tusks for a Thundertusks as he has very little ranged damage output. 

 

I think the Hunter plus Sabretusks battalion is worth a look (I think Russ mentioned this too) - I'm not claiming credit.

It's one of those combos that is a lot better with the surprise factor (assuming he didn't double turn you). I'm right in thinking that the Huskard on Stonehorn ends up doing even more damage than the Stonelord with Battlebrew (although crucially only has a 4+ save). Did Donal have both, such that he wanted you to worry about the Stonelord (and the Thundertusk you've already mentioned as a threat)? Is this good use of "target saturation"? 

Particularly versus Sylvaneth where you can zoo pen his monsters (even on their tiny bases) using Wyldwoods.

Quote

I was playing Matt Clarke, a tournament regular who, although he doesn't take the optimal lists, gets consistent results. He has won multiple best in alliance trophies this year I believe. And has played 3 of the 4 Grand Alliances. He's not a fluff gamer, just a decent all round player. 

 

Sorry - I didn't mean it in a critical manner, we're all trying out new things in club games/practice games etc.. Some of my paper lists have been a catastrophe once they hit the table - Fatesworn Warband got eaten by Flappies; Nagash won a game vs Sylvaneth but died embarrassingly; my Mannderp plus Bowshabti list bounced off @grunnlock's BCR; and my Fyreslayers bounced off @grunnlock's BCR.

However, most "BCR" lists are converging on either @grunnlock 's list at Blood & Glory (Stonelord, 3 Huskards on Thundertusks, Moonclan Grots and Fanatics, Shaman), or they are combining BCR monsters with the monster hating Kunning Rukk Arrer Filth (and optionally Spiderfang or Gitmob as well):

All of these lists get around the low model count weakness that is meant to balance out the undercosted BCR Huskards on Thundertusks and the Battlebrew combo with the Stonelord.

Quote

Having said that, after the game matt did say he was thinking of dropping some of the mournfang or the sabre tusks for a Thundertusks as he has very little ranged damage output. 

Matt has reached the right conclusion. Russ also said that the Mournfang are dismal for 200 points for 2 models is it? I would agree. Like most cavalry, they are hard to buff, unreliable, underperforming, painfully overcosted or all of the above (the exceptions - Snake Surfers and some of the Dracoth Cavalry really stand out). I'll repeat the fact that I shuddered when I saw a photo of Russ's list on Twitter on the train, worked out what the combo was and predicted (very poorly) that it would be another Russ Veal winner. I didn't anticipate that someone would stop him deploying his second wave on Escalation and autowin the game at the start of Battleround 2 for example.

Turning back to Sylvaneth, they do have a lot of threats to Sylvaneth - primarily the double snowball (soft countered by Seed of Rebirth) on 12 wound critical heroes (you could bring Oakenbrow, but seems to be a terrible waste of points).

The idea of using Tree Revenants as a rent a screen would be really good vs Stonelords and Huskhorns (look a new name!). Particularly if you slapped your Les Martin Cluster in the middle (especially on or around an objective and then had a line of 5 Tree Revenants on one of the edges, to further block the Stonelord.

Frankly you could just populate your Les Martin Cluster with Kurnoth Hunters in the core of it (in cover but so that they cannot be charged by the Stonelord and just pew pew the Stonelords/Huskhorns to Death from behind an inpenetrable wall of trees once the Thundertusks are dealt with. They will trade Vultures with you, but you can heal.

Meanwhile your Ancient is dropping the Les Martin Household on the Arrer Boyz and holding them off in a corner and gradually grinding them down. The Kurnoths can relay out his Command Ability to the rest of your dudes.   

 

[Stevewren]

I played a 3K game the other day at Warhammer World using the following Scenario. I thought I'd post it here for anyone that actually still plays narrative games. It ended up being Sylvaneth v Sylvaneth which was cool, and came down to the final turn which was nice. Have a look and feel free to copy and adapt it at your leisure: 

Battleplan:

Awakening the Sacred Groves

THE ARMIES

One player commands the Sylvaneth army and the other commands the corrupters who have deigned to defile the sacred groves. 

SYLVANETH OBJECTIVE

It is your quest to travel the realms, returning the spirit song to places long bereft of its vitality bringing melodies. If you are fortunate you will find a sacred grove lying dormant, awaiting your return…

CORRUPTERS OBJECTIVE

The spirit song has slowly started to burrow its way into the minds of your warriors and wizards, driving them mad with its tints inducing tones. Your leader, driven mad by this cacophony of sounds is leading their army across this tree infested land corrupting areas where the spirit song blares out, aiming to silence the sounds forever…

THE BATTLEFIELD

Divide the battlefield into six equal sections with a Sylvaneth Wyldwood in each section. These count as Sacred Groves Three of these are corrupted, and three are already awakened (you can use the bare trees to represent the corrupted woods and the foliage trees for awakened woods). 

The entire battlefield counts as a Sylvaneth Wyldwood. 

Generate the remaining scenery for the battlefield as described in the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules sheet (setting up one less terrain feature in a 2 foot square if it already contains a Sacred Grove

SET UP

Follow the set up instructions from the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules sheet.  

FOUL CORRUPTION

Whilst one side makes every effort to reawaken the Sacred Groves, others will stop at nothing to keep them dormant. During this battle all wizards belonging to the Corrupting player  know the Corrupt the Land spell. 

 

CORRUPT THE LAND

Corrupt the land has a range of 3” and a casting value of 7. Add +1 to the roll for every friendly unit within 6” of a Sacred Grove and if there are no enemy units within 6”. If successfully cast you can corrupt an awakened Sacred Grove. 

RITE OF AWAKENING

Among the ranks of the Sylvaneth there are a chosen few who can sing the spirit songs of old, blessing the ancient Sacred Groves with renewed vigour and allowing life to once again flourish. During this battle all SYLVANETH WIZARDS belonging to the Sylvaneth player  know the Rite of Awakening spell.

RITE OF AWAKENING

Rite or Awakening has a range of 3” and a casting value of 7. Add +1 to the roll for every friendly unit within 6” of a Sacred Grove and if there are no enemy units within 6”. If successfully cast you can awaken a Sacred Grove.

The Agony of Loss: When a Sacred Grove becomes corrupted the area hums with a spite fuelled power. Roll a dice for each enemy model within 18”. On a roll of a 1 that model suffers D3 mortal wounds. 

The Woods Awakened: When a Sacred Grove is awakened the spirit song thrums triumphantly across the battlefield. Roll a dice for each enemy unit within 18”. On a roll of a 6 that model regains D3 wounds (or D3 models in the case of single wound units).

VICTORY

The battle continues for 5 turns. At the end of the 5th Battle round which ever player has the most woods of their type (either Awakened or Corrupted) that player wins a minor victory. 

If either player Awakens or Corrupts all six woods the game ends immediately and they win a major victory.

[Forestreveries]

2 hours ago, Stevewren said:

I played a 3K game the other day at Warhammer World using the following Scenario. I thought I'd post it here for anyone that actually still plays narrative games. It ended up being Sylvaneth v Sylvaneth which was cool, and came down to the final turn which was nice. Have a look and feel free to copy and adapt it at your leisure: 

Battleplan:

Awakening the Sacred Groves

THE ARMIES

One player commands the Sylvaneth army and the other commands the corrupters who have deigned to defile the sacred groves. 

SYLVANETH OBJECTIVE

It is your quest to travel the realms, returning the spirit song to places long bereft of its vitality bringing melodies. If you are fortunate you will find a sacred grove lying dormant, awaiting your return…

CORRUPTERS OBJECTIVE

The spirit song has slowly started to burrow its way into the minds of your warriors and wizards, driving them mad with its tints inducing tones. Your leader, driven mad by this cacophony of sounds is leading their army across this tree infested land corrupting areas where the spirit song blares out, aiming to silence the sounds forever…

THE BATTLEFIELD

Divide the battlefield into six equal sections with a Sylvaneth Wyldwood in each section. These count as Sacred Groves Three of these are corrupted, and three are already awakened (you can use the bare trees to represent the corrupted woods and the foliage trees for awakened woods). 

The entire battlefield counts as a Sylvaneth Wyldwood. 

Generate the remaining scenery for the battlefield as described in the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules sheet (setting up one less terrain feature in a 2 foot square if it already contains a Sacred Grove

SET UP

Follow the set up instructions from the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules sheet.  

FOUL CORRUPTION

Whilst one side makes every effort to reawaken the Sacred Groves, others will stop at nothing to keep them dormant. During this battle all wizards belonging to the Corrupting player  know the Corrupt the Land spell. 

 

CORRUPT THE LAND

Corrupt the land has a range of 3” and a casting value of 7. Add +1 to the roll for every friendly unit within 6” of a Sacred Grove and if there are no enemy units within 6”. If successfully cast you can corrupt an awakened Sacred Grove. 

RITE OF AWAKENING

Among the ranks of the Sylvaneth there are a chosen few who can sing the spirit songs of old, blessing the ancient Sacred Groves with renewed vigour and allowing life to once again flourish. During this battle all SYLVANETH WIZARDS belonging to the Sylvaneth player  know the Rite of Awakening spell.

RITE OF AWAKENING

Rite or Awakening has a range of 3” and a casting value of 7. Add +1 to the roll for every friendly unit within 6” of a Sacred Grove and if there are no enemy units within 6”. If successfully cast you can awaken a Sacred Grove.

The Agony of Loss: When a Sacred Grove becomes corrupted the area hums with a spite fuelled power. Roll a dice for each enemy model within 18”. On a roll of a 1 that model suffers D3 mortal wounds. 

The Woods Awakened: When a Sacred Grove is awakened the spirit song thrums triumphantly across the battlefield. Roll a dice for each enemy unit within 18”. On a roll of a 6 that model regains D3 wounds (or D3 models in the case of single wound units).

VICTORY

The battle continues for 5 turns. At the end of the 5th Battle round which ever player has the most woods of their type (either Awakened or Corrupted) that player wins a minor victory. 

If either player Awakens or Corrupts all six woods the game ends immediately and they win a major victory.

 

 

Is this the one from the battletome? Or a slightly altered version?

I keep saying I really want to play @Chris Tomlins Ironjawz in the island raid scenario. Seems so cool!


Sent from the Hidden Enclaves via the Realmroots

 

 

[Mirage8112]

10 hours ago, Nico said:

You are of course probably correct on a literal interpretation. You could perhaps say that Sylvaneth Wyldwood is a keyword and hence a "scenery rule" in a broad sense.

Purposively, I'm pretty skeptical. I'm going to go with the purposive approach as normal, i.e. it just becomes a vanilla piece of scenery. 

The text for rampaging destroyers says nothing about the scenery losing it's keywords, only that it's "scenery rules" cannot be used, and it no longer provides cover. But movement shenanigans, the Dryads hit debuff, and various warscroll abilities revolve around wyldwoods should still work, because none of those are "Scenery Rules."  On the warscroll it very clearly says what Wyldwood "scenery rules" are:



 

10 hours ago, Nico said:

At a competitive event, I wouldn't dare to challenge a Destruction player who thought that this would delete all the movement tricks, and the +1 to save - you're just begging the TO to hate you and hate all Sylvaneth players. At the very least (if you are right), then you should flag this to the opponent before he wastes his Command Trait.

 

Right. Worried about TO and other players hating us? This coming from a guy that want to argue to the death that Kurnoth hunters can retreat from combat and still shoot? Or that 6 freespirit hunters could basically do the same and still charge?  

Aside from that, I see the current interpretation of "Nothing left standing", a lot like our wyldwood placement, where we weren't reading the rules closely enough. (i.e. each citadel woods needs to be within 1" of every other citadel wood). Same with Nothing left standing. We've all assumed that it turns Wyldwoods into regular woods, but that's not what it actually says. It says "it no longer provides cover and it's scenery rules cannot be used." 

But even if it can't totally shut down Sylvaneth movement or all the buffs that happen around wyldwoods, it's not a wasted Command Trait by any means. Losing that "roll a 1 and lose a model" rule is huge when your army makes up for low model count with multi-wound models. Losing roused by magic is less important, but no less a bonus; I did have a forest do 8-10 mortal wounds yesterday when the woods went crazy after an arcane bolt. Granted it only happened once, but what a round of magic that was!  
 

[Nico]

Quote

Right. Worried about TO and other players hating us? This coming from a guy that want to argue to the death that Kurnoth hunters can retreat from combat and still shoot? Or that 6 freespirit hunters could basically do the same and still charge?  

You mean fail to charge. They aren't going to make a 9 charge very often. It matters because of the shooting.  

I'm arguing it because (a) if we don't argue it then the army will be comped into the ground because people play one game against it, lose badly as they haven't read the rules in advance and wield the nerf bat (which happened within 3 months of the Sylvaneth book landing with at least one event comping Wyldwoods down to one base maximum); and (b) because it is part of the bigger issue of keeping set ups and moves as distinct from each other as possible.

Quote

The text for rampaging destroyers says nothing about the scenery losing it's keywords, only that it's "scenery rules" cannot be used, and it no longer provides cover. But movement shenanigans, the Dryads hit debuff, and various warscroll abilities revolve around wyldwoods should still work, because none of those are "Scenery Rules." 

Again this is literalism over purposive interpretation. It leads to a really complicated result where you end up with a half-Wyldwood that has some of its properties and not all of them - that's really going to confuse your opponent. The wording of the ability could be clearer of course - I don't know whether it was written with Wyldwoods in mind (as opposed to Mystical Terrain). It could be house ruled or FAQed to clarify it to take out the keywords of the Wyldwood as well.

That said, this one - while interesting - is an almost purely academic debate. There is almost never a good reason for Destruction to take this trait over Bellowing Shout or Ravager (which are both amazing) - the main time that this would make sense would be if you knew that Kroak was going up on that Balewind Vortex and you needed to disable it as you had no way to deal with the Toad. 

Quote

But even if it can't totally shut down Sylvaneth movement or all the buffs that happen around wyldwoods, it's not a wasted Command Trait by any means. Losing that "roll a 1 and lose a model" rule is huge when your army makes up for low model count with multi-wound models. Losing roused by magic is less important, but no less a bonus; I did have a forest do 8-10 mortal wounds yesterday when the woods went crazy after an arcane bolt. Granted it only happened once, but what a round of magic that was!  

There's also the impracticality of it. You have to do it in your hero phase, so the Sylvaneth player simply doesn't put the Wyldwood near the general on deployment (7 inches away is safe). Then with a single drop army you could just take the first turn and flood the area with Dryads or whatever. The Destruction player then has to move towards the Wyldwood; and then wait for its next hero phase before he can disable it.

Alternatively, you put the Wyldwood 7 inches away, then give them first turn, they move closer to disable it, but then you have a possible double turn to kill the hero or kill the 5 models that also need to be within 6. 

To be fair, another good use would be if you got lumbered with a gigantic bit of Mystical Terrain in your table side which you wanted to use as cover for enemy turn one pew pew, but then you could disable the Mystical before you rolled with it (but again a niche use). So it does have occasional value.

[Nico]

Quote

I played a 3K game the other day at Warhammer World using the following Scenario. I thought I'd post it here for anyone that actually still plays narrative games. 

Thanks! Think there are still a lot of narrative games going on - certainly plenty of people are creating content in that area judging from Twitter. Certainly enjoyed the ones I have done. Quite keen to do the Nagash vs Archaon one.

[Mirage8112]

48 minutes ago, Nico said:

You mean fail to charge. They aren't going to make a 9 charge very often. It matters because of the shooting.  

Free spirit hunters can move in the hero phase as if it were the movement phase and then move again in the movement phase. You're arguing that Navigate Realmroots doesn't count as retreating, so effectively freespirit hunters could leave combat via the realmroots to within 9", move again in the movement phase (5") and then charge, 4" is an easy charge to make. Likewise Durthu with his +2 to the realmroots chart effectively gives him a second move on a 4+, and then a charge (by your interpretation). I don't care what you say, 6 damage -2 rend coming at you is scary as fk. 400pts or not. 
 

 

48 minutes ago, Nico said:

I'm arguing it because (a) if we don't argue it then the army will be comped into the ground because people play one game against it, lose badly as they haven't read the rules in advance and wield the nerf bat (which happened within 3 months of the Sylvaneth book landing with at least one event comping Wyldwoods down to one base maximum); and (b) because it is part of the bigger issue of keeping set ups and moves as distinct from each other as possible.

Your first point is not an argument about the rules, your arguing because your afraid we're too strong; that's silly. the rules are what the rules are and they say what they say. If other people haven't read the rules correctly, that's their problem. I had a guy think that "once per battle" meant every round "because every round was a battle" ... no joke. Did I let him do it? Hell no. Rules are rules. 

Secondly, The issue with " keeping set ups and moves as distinct from each other as possible." is your issue. I still still haven't seen any solid rules from you as to why that matters with retreating. Yeah the distinction "between moving and set-ups" got you a point in one match. That doesn't mean its relevant to the discussion at hand (retreating), because nobody is arguing that set-ups are the same as moves. They clearly aren't. Your arguing that retreats are only moves, which they clearly aren't, and you haven't given any reason why they should be considered such.

 

48 minutes ago, Nico said:

Quote

The text for rampaging destroyers says nothing about the scenery losing it's keywords, only that it's "scenery rules" cannot be used, and it no longer provides cover. But movement shenanigans, the Dryads hit debuff, and various warscroll abilities revolve around wyldwoods should still work, because none of those are "Scenery Rules." 

Again this is literalism over purposive interpretation. It leads to a really complicated result where you end up with a half-Wyldwood that has some of its properties and not all of them - that's really going to confuse your opponent. The wording of the ability could be clearer of course - I don't know whether it was written with Wyldwoods in mind (as opposed to Mystical Terrain). It could be house ruled or FAQed to clarify it to take out the keywords of the Wyldwood as well.

 
"Purposive interpretation" is just another way of saying, "the rules say one thing, but they mean another". It reminds me when AoS first dropped and people argued that double hand weapons gave you an extra attack "because two weapons twice as many attacks right?". Nope, the rules stated they get to reroll 1's. FAQ confirmed "rules as written".  Rules as written is, as far as I'm concerned, the only thing that matters. If something isn't clear, i.e. your not sure how something works, then you can take a stab at "Purposive interpretation". There isn't anything not clear about this. It's pretty black and white.

It's also not complicated. There are unit abilities that forbid you from using one of your models weapons (gutrot spume for example). It's not confusing to have a "half-model that can use some weapons and some not." Same with Wyldwoods, you can't use its two scenery rules, and it no longer gives cover. That's what it says. It says nothing about losing keywords. It's still a wyldwood. There is no precedent for models or scenery losing keywords in the entire game (as far as I'm aware. And if there is, it probably explicitly says it loses keywords).

An FAQ is one thing, but houseruling is another. I could houserule that everytime you roll double ones you have to take a shot of tequila. That has no impact on the game past the people playing in that particular game. 
 

48 minutes ago, Nico said:

That said, this one - while interesting - is an almost purely academic debate. There is almost never a good reason for Destruction to take this trait over Bellowing Shout or Ravager (which are both amazing) - the main time that this would make sense would be if you knew that Kroak was going up on that Balewind Vortex and you needed to disable it as you had no way to deal with the Toad. 

That's your opinion, and I happen to disagree. I know plenty of Destruction players (nearly all of them) that take Nothing left Standing for game with objectives. Destructing armies are already hella fast, (my ogre opponent was in combat turn 1)  and +1 to hit is nice, but there are other ways to get hit bonuses that don't require you to be within a random distance from your general.
 

48 minutes ago, Nico said:

There's also the impracticality of it. You have to do it in your hero phase, so the Sylvaneth player simply doesn't put the Wyldwood near the general on deployment (7 inches away is safe). Then with a single drop army you could just take the first turn and flood the area with Dryads or whatever. The Destruction player then has to move towards the Wyldwood; and then wait for its next hero phase before he can disable it.

Yeah, if you can't figure out how it's useful, Im not going to explain it to you lol. But I will say that our free woods go down before deployment, kind hard to keep it away from the general when there isn't a general on the board yet.